Australian Politics Forum - Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? Reply #270 - Nov 5^th, 2013 at 10:50pm What Milton Friedman doesn't mention are the deeds of the CATO institute
Back to top	Mini Ice Age (2014-2029) Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness IP Logged

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? Reply #271 - Nov 5^th, 2013 at 11:28pm .
Back to top	Mini Ice Age (2014-2029) Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #272 - Nov 5^th, 2013 at 11:52pm

Pantheon wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?

The idea that capitalism exploits workers stems from Karl Marx's work in the late 1800s. Although the definition of "exploitation" has changed since then, many still believe capitalist systems take advantage of vulnerable workers. Prof. Matt Zwolinski explains why capitalism actually tends to protect workers' interests. And Zwolinski contends that even if it were exploitative, increasing political regulation and control would actually make the problem worse. Increases in government make citizens more vulnerable to the state. Political officials are tempted to exploit this vulnerability for the benefit of the politically well connected. Unlike free market transactions, which are mutually beneficial, when politics is involved one party's gain usually comes at someone else's expense.

What tripe. This post from the same guy who told us we should feel sorry for the bankers who caused the GFC. Black is white and white is black. This Guy is slave extraordinaire

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #273 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 12:15am

Pantheon wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Pantheon wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 11:01am:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 10:58am:

Pantheon wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?

Is that a rhetorical question. Of course it does! It's the nature of the beast! Cheesy

Would you like to tell me where i went wrong

Lack of life experiences? Cheesy

I could say the same thing to you, however unlike you, i'm not a child. Please tell me where i went wrong.

Because looking at workers in the West and workers in Socialist states, We have far more rights and freedoms than other workers from socialist state don't have.

Your confusing the economic system (capitalism) with the political system (representative government). Representative government has delivered some benefits and proved itself to be superior to totalitarian systems of government (thus far). As always what you are trying to do is credit capitalism with the achievements of the political system, whereas in truth if capitalism were not regulated by the political system (and that of course is your aim, to ultimatly do away with the state so that capitalism is free to exploit and enslave to the hilt, unfettered) we would lose those liberties we now enjoy and are quickly losing as the capitalist fanatical elite strengthen their grip on the political processes. Sorry, you asked where you went wrong. Thats where you went wrong.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #274 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 12:25am

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

At a fundamental level I don't think it does.
In the current crony corporate level maybe.

Two phrases of why it doesn't in a "free market":
- Voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit
- Time preference

What on earth does this drivel mean. Can you explain it please, since it appears central to your argument though totally incomprehensible.

Though I think with the current system of politicized unions and corporate powers

When is a union and corporate power not politicised? Sheeesh!!!

, not to mention the inability to opt out of mandatory taxation , you end up taking away most of the voluntary interaction and time preference gets distorted with survival preference of whatever the master will give or whatever the union says.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #275 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 12:48am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

Capitalism is not perfect by any means but it absolutely is the best card game in town.

and a card game it is full of bluff and bluster and the biggest crook of them all usually makes off with the cash. As usual Andrei doesnt back up anything he says because of course backing up a claim with cold hard analysis requires intellect and effort and thats not what capitalists excel in. Deceiving and cheating people out of their talent and hard work is the capitalist's game

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #276 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 1:21am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2013 at 12:25am:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

At a fundamental level I don't think it does.
In the current crony corporate level maybe.

Two phrases of why it doesn't in a "free market":
- Voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit
- Time preference

What on earth does this drivel mean. Can you explain it please, since it appears central to your argument though totally incomprehensible.

Though I think with the current system of politicized unions and corporate powers

When is a union and corporate power not politicised? Sheeesh!!!

, not to mention the inability to opt out of mandatory taxation , you end up taking away most of the voluntary interaction and time preference gets distorted with survival preference of whatever the master will give or whatever the union says.

The question:
Does capitalism exploit workers?

My answer:
In free market capitalism I can give two simple reasons why it doesn't at a fundamental level.

1. Voluntarism:
Voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit insures that no part in an exchange is being exploited. They both perceive benefit in the exchange more so than no participating. When I buy a chocolate from you, you want my money more than the chocolate bar and I want the chocolate bar more than I valued the money. It's voluntary and each party perceives a mutual benefit, value is subjective it changes from person to person, a person in a desert dying is going to value a bottle of water more than someone in a building with free water filters etc.

^ combined with that you also need to understand the 3 things money represents: Scarcity, subjective values and; labour/energy/time/resource costs of something.

2. Time preference:
Page 17 I made a pizza analogy.

Basically a person may create something that is then sold for $80, however would accept $40 for that work, rather than having to market the object, try and sell it and then wait for the $80 profit by doing all the work himself. Labour is divided, if I make the pizza it's only possible because of a long supply chain of other peoples actions, and if it's sold for $10 it doesn't mean I created it I get $10, no because of time preference I just wanted to make the thing and get paid something I felt acceptable, whilst someone else will deliver it which is labour in itself, not just that but the business owner paid for the equipment I used to make it, for the store, maybe they did the business plan, maybe they marketed the business etc etc it's not just about what one person does it's about what many do.

So in reality labour and risk are both divided and people interact voluntarily for a benefit rather than go to the trouble of trying to receive the full benefit for the full range of actions themselves. In summation time preference is voluntarily accepting something for your contribution as a part of a whole and acknowledging the contributions/costs/actions of others as well as the benefit of having a weekly wage rather than waiting while a product goes through a long series of events on it's road to profit.

Does that make sense Spartacus?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 6^th, 2013 at 1:26am by Vuk11 »

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #277 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:03am

Pantheon wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 10:59am:

I'm being to think no one watch the video... Roll Eyes

What caused the 2008 GFC was the US Government, they interfered with the 'free market' and guaranteed bankers and investors etc, that nothing will go wrong its backed by the US government. In fact the bankers didn't know (foolishly) how risky the investments was, until it was too late. Bankers didn't want bail outs (only 2 of the 9 banks which got a bail out actually needed it, and like the banks troubled business was also got bailed out. However both bankers were forced by the US to accept the bail outs) because in accepting them the US government will become part owner of the bank.

In other words: Lemon socialism: a term for the practice in supposedly free market capitalist economies in which the government steps in to bail out or otherwise subsidize weak or failing firms

Who was at fault? if the US Gov didn't got interfered with the 'free market' and guaranteed bankers and investors etc, that nothing will go wrong at the same time falsely ranked CCC rated investments AAA, the GFC could of been avoided.

What an immoral distortion of history this is. Where does one start to address all these distortions. First from the 90s on the fanatical capitalist elite and especially those from the financial sector (esp the bankers) progressively got their minions in government to deregulate and on top of that they positioned there own people in govt regulatory bodies (they do it in australia too, its rife, check out the ACCC for eg) to lobby for more deregulation and to loosely apply existing regulations. The result was that the financial sector went crazy with greed investing in all manner of risky ventures and bang! the GFC. Thats what happened and thats what we all know happened and no amount of bankers propaganda and bankers weasel words is going to change that. So it was too much unregulated free market that caused the GFC not the other way round as you pretend. Secondly, how pathetic it is for bankers who remember are in the business of banking to now say "its the governments fault because it guaranteed bankers and investors etc, that nothing will go wrong its backed by the US government. In fact the bankers didn't know (foolishly) how risky the investments was, until it was too late. What a mealy mouthed gutless decietful finger pointing kind of excuse is that for bankers to make "We didnt know the risks" FFS!!! And Ahovking dutifully repeats this mantra as if its somehow reasonable. Pathetic, just pathetic. And then we're told the bankers didn't want the bail out. They were forced to take the money and were told this was done not because they were insolvent (as indeed they were) but because the government wanted to become part owners of their banks. Oh right. So where are these banks that the people of America are now part owners of. How much of these banks do the people now own and what share of the profits did the people get from these banks since the GFC 5 years ago. How much interest did these banks pay the people for the bail out money the banks were forced to take or was no interest charged. How much did the banks pay the government for the bank guarantees that the banks got or was that given to them free also. It seems banks get rewarded for risk taking but the people do not. And when ot all goes wrong "It was their fault. They made us do it. What a fiction that silly childish bedtime story that is. .

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #278 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:15am

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2013 at 1:21am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2013 at 12:25am:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

At a fundamental level I don't think it does.
In the current crony corporate level maybe.

Two phrases of why it doesn't in a "free market":
- Voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit
- Time preference

What on earth does this drivel mean. Can you explain it please, since it appears central to your argument though totally incomprehensible.

Though I think with the current system of politicized unions and corporate powers

When is a union and corporate power not politicised? Sheeesh!!!

, not to mention the inability to opt out of mandatory taxation , you end up taking away most of the voluntary interaction and time preference gets distorted with survival preference of whatever the master will give or whatever the union says.

The question:
Does capitalism exploit workers?

My answer:
In free market capitalism I can give two simple reasons why it doesn't at a fundamental level.

1. Voluntarism:
Voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit insures that no part in an exchange is being exploited. They both perceive benefit in the exchange more so than no participating. When I buy a chocolate from you, you want my money more than the chocolate bar and I want the chocolate bar more than I valued the money. It's voluntary and each party perceives a mutual benefit, value is subjective it changes from person to person, a person in a desert dying is going to value a bottle of water more than someone in a building with free water filters etc.

^ combined with that you also need to understand the 3 things money represents: Scarcity, subjective values and; labour/energy/time/resource costs of something.

2. Time preference:
Page 17 I made a pizza analogy.

Basically a person may create something that is then sold for $80, however would accept $40 for that work, rather than having to market the object, try and sell it and then wait for the $80 profit by doing all the work himself. Labour is divided, if I make the pizza it's only possible because of a long supply chain of other peoples actions, and if it's sold for $10 it doesn't mean I created it I get $10, no because of time preference I just wanted to make the thing and get paid something I felt acceptable, whilst someone else will deliver it which is labour in itself, not just that but the business owner paid for the equipment I used to make it, for the store, maybe they did the business plan, maybe they marketed the business etc etc it's not just about what one person does it's about what many do.

So in reality labour and risk are both divided and people interact voluntarily for a benefit rather than go to the trouble of trying to receive the full benefit for the full range of actions themselves. In summation time preference is voluntarily accepting something for your contribution as a part of a whole and acknowledging the contributions/costs/actions of others as well as the benefit of having a weekly wage rather than waiting while a product goes through a long series of events on it's road to profit.

Does that make sense Spartacus?

It might make more sense if you were making widgets instead Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Vuk11 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1797 QLD Gender:	Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? Reply #279 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:25am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:15am: It might make more sense if you were making widgets instead Why you speak in riddles?
Back to top	IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #280 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:33am

Quote:

What an immoral distortion of history this is. Where does one start to address all these distortions. First from the 90s on the fanatical capitalist elite and especially those from the financial sector (esp the bankers) progressively got their minions in government to deregulate and on top of that they positioned there own people in govt regulatory bodies (they do it in australia too, its rife, check out the ACCC for eg) to lobby for more deregulation and to loosely apply existing regulations. The result was that the financial sector went crazy with greed investing in all manner of risky ventures and bang! the GFC. Thats what happened and thats what we all know happened and no amount of bankers propaganda and bankers weasel words is going to change that. So it was too much unregulated free market that caused the GFC not the other way round as you pretend

The problem started with Government wanting every family to have a home and give banks incentives and at times forced banks to give loans to people who could never pay the banks back, the true value of these 'sub-prime loans' were then suppress and replace with an inflated value which was then sold off, no one know how risky these 'sub-prime loans' were and no one cared it was easy money back and guaranteed to be safe.

The housing market in the United States suffered greatly as many home owners who had taken out sub-prime loans found they were unable to meet their mortgage repayments. As the value of homes plummeted, the borrowers found themselves with negative equity. With a large number of borrowers defaulting on loans, banks were faced with a situation where the repossessed house and land was worth less on today’s market than the bank had loaned out originally. The banks had a liquidity crisis on their hands, and giving and obtaining loans became increasingly difficult as the fallout from the sub-prime lending bubble burst. This is commonly referred to as the credit crunch.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

Pantheon Gold Member Offline Woke Posts: 1256 Gender:	Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? Reply #281 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:34am Vuk11 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:25am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:15am: It might make more sense if you were making widgets instead Why you speak in riddles? Its not riddles its broken English you see, Deathridesahorse went to a public school.
Back to top	[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates. IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #282 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 2:57am

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2013 at 1:21am:

1. Voluntarism:
Voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit insures that no part in an exchange is being exploited. They both perceive benefit in the exchange more so than no participating. When I buy a chocolate from you, you want my money more than the chocolate bar and I want the chocolate bar more than I valued the money. It's voluntary and each party perceives a mutual benefit, value is subjective it changes from person to person, a person in a desert dying is going to value a bottle of water more than someone in a building with free water filters etc.

Thanks Vuk but this explanation is about buying and selling, What possible relevance does it have to producing and manufacturing. The question is do capitalists exploit workers. But this example says nothing about workers or the people who employ them to work. And I tell you why I find this so troubling. Because you said it was for this reason and the next reason (which I will get to in a moment) that you believe "on balance" (or words to that effect) that workers are not exploited by capitalists and yet your explanation has nothing to do with workers or their masters. Very troubling. I think you need to do a reassessment of yor position since your first reason is irrelevant.

^ combined with that you also need to understand the 3 things money represents: Scarcity, subjective values and; labour/energy/time/resource costs of something.

2. Time preference:
Page 17 I made a pizza analogy.

Basically a person may create something that is then sold for $80, however would accept $40 for that work, rather than having to market the object, try and sell it and then wait for the $80 profit by doing all the work himself. Labour is divided, if I make the pizza it's only possible because of a long supply chain of other peoples actions, and if it's sold for $10 it doesn't mean I created it I get $10, no because of time preference I just wanted to make the thing and get paid something I felt acceptable, whilst someone else will deliver it which is labour in itself, not just that but the business owner paid for the equipment I used to make it, for the store, maybe they did the business plan, maybe they marketed the business etc etc it's not just about what one person does it's about what many do.

So in reality labour and risk are both divided and people interact voluntarily for a benefit rather than go to the trouble of trying to receive the full benefit for the full range of actions themselves. In summation time preference is voluntarily accepting something for your contribution as a part of a whole and acknowledging the contributions/costs/actions of others as well as the benefit of having a weekly wage rather than waiting while a product goes through a long series of events on it's road to profit.

Does that make sense Spartacus?

Yes thank but you paint a very pretty story that bares very little relationship to the real world. Surly you must see that. Again its troubling because you say this is the second reason why you think workers are not exploited by capitalists and yet the picture you outline is like a movie fantasy. It doesnt exist out there in the real world. You talk about voluntariness and say nothing about the power imbalance between employer and government on the one side and worker on the other. You say nothing about the laws that stop workers from withholding their labour. You take every opportunity to embellish and exaggerate the contribution that the employer makes and say next to nothing about the workers contribution. All things that you would need to discuss if you are serious about examining whether the worker is being exploited or not. How much is he getting paid for how much time he is working, how much is he getting paid for how much he is producing. How much is he getting paid for how much the thing is selling. You talk about the employers risk for which he gets profit. But you said nothing about how often workers take pay cuts in the bad times on a promise of an increase when things get better (and then promise is never kept) . All these things and many more that I have not mentioned are relevant but conveniently ignored in your pretty linear little fantasy you have created. Again since its one of the linchpins of your reasons for saying workers are not exploited I would have thought they at least needed a mention. [color=#0000ff]

[/color]

Im going to bed. Talk to you tomorrow

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 6^th, 2013 at 3:04am by ImSpartacus2 »

IP Logged

Lord Herbert

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 34441
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #283 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 6:26am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

I hope you understand now Mr Herbert why capitalism and humanitarianism are morally incompatible concepts.

That's debatable.

You failed to read my lips when I said that it is a matter of getting the right balance between capitalist productivity and profit-making ... and humanitarian socialism taking care of those few who for one reason or another are unable to take care of themselves as 90% of us are able to do.

The whole reason we have a capitalist party and then a socialist party alternating in government is to get this balance right.

But! I take your point about the US being reprehensibly, inexcusably, and criminally Third World with its health care system.

Personal example: I know from my Googling that my heart operation at the beginning of this year would have cost me my house if I was living in the US.

Precisely $100,000 for the op in the US. Cost me zilch here as a Public Health patient without private cover.

If the US spent less on its goddamn overseas military adventures it just might have the money available to provide free health care for all.

The prison system over there is also a huge financial black-hole vortex that sucks away millions each day keeping them ghetto black rappers off the streets and out of de hoods.

If the yanks had any sense they would incarcerate ALL of their prisoners doing 5 or more years south of the border in Mexico on contract to the Mexican government at a fraction of the cost that it is now.

Back to top

IP Logged

viewpoint

Gold Member

Offline

A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #284 - Nov 6^th, 2013 at 6:48am

Grey wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 10:07pm:

Quote:

This is the crux of the issue, you admit that there are other costs besides what the labourer does, for example in my pizza analogy the pizza maker didn't pay for the store/equipment/marketing/managing/business plan/negotiations etc, however this where you turn 100% subjective. You say that in your view what a employer charges is way more than what their contribution is worth, however that's totally and utterly irrelevant, it's not up to what you think something is worth if an employee is willing to accept terms of work and then if a customer is willing to accept terms of purchase.

Damn right it's the crux of the issue. It's irelevant to you how much people are ripped off, that's what makes you the capitalist exploiting greedy cunning little shyte.

Anarchists have what are called ethics. We don't want to rip people off or be ripped off. This is not subjective as it happens, we hold the same view whether or not there's personal involvement. In your ethical vacuum it makes just as much sense to steal or take by force.

I say put them all out of work.....let them grow their own food, make their own clothes, build their own homes......who the smack needs employers........and then we can see how equal to each other people are......maybe some will be more equal than others......let the others starve...

Does that sound more like it Grey?

Get these motor manufacturers the hell out of Australia......get these other employers the hell out of the country......Grey will sort everything out...............jobs who the smack needs a job? Grin

Over to you Grey.

Back to top

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Yes, ofcause. 18 (72.0%) No, it doesnt 7 (28.0%) Total votes: 25 « Created by: Pantheon on: Oct 29^th, 2013 at 9:31am »